↓ Skip to main content

Sitting position affects performance in cross-country sit-skiing

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Sitting position affects performance in cross-country sit-skiing
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00421-017-3596-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Lund Ohlsson, M. S. Laaksonen

Abstract

In cross-country sit-skiing (XCSS), athletes with reduced trunk control predominantly sit with the knees higher than the hips (KH); a position often associated with large spinal flexion. Therefore, to improve spinal curvature a new sledge with frontal trunk support, where knees are lower than hips (KL) was created. It was hypothesized that the KL position would improve respiratory function and enhance performance in seated double-poling compared to KH. Ten female able-bodied cross-country skiers (age 25.5 ± 3.8 years, height 1.65 ± 0.05 m, mass 61.1 ± 6.8 kg) completed a 30 s all-out test (WIN), a submaximal incremental test including 3-7 3 min loads (SUB) and a maximal 3 min time trial (MAX) in both KL and KH positions. During SUB and MAX external power, pole forces, surface electromyography, and kinematics were measured. Metabolic rates were calculated from oxygen consumption and blood lactate concentrations. KL reduced spinal flexion and range of motion at the hip joint and indicated more muscle activation in the triceps. Performance (W kg(-1)) was impeded in both WIN (KH 1.40 ± 0.30 vs. KL 1.13 ± 0.33, p < 0.01) and MAX (KH 0.88 ± 0.19 vs. KL 0.67 ± 0.14, p < 0.01). KH resulted in higher gross efficiency (GE) and lower lactate concentration, anaerobic metabolic rate, and minute ventilation for equal power output. The new KL position can be recommended due to improved respiratory function but may impede performance. Generalization of results to XCSS athletes with reduced trunk muscle control may be limited, but these results can serve as a control for future studies of para-athletes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 72 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 27 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 15 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Engineering 3 4%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 30 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2018.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#2,159
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,680
of 324,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#65
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.